JAGANNATH PRASAD AND HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore by a firm named Jagannath Prasad, etc. against one Kanhaiya Lal, who was alleged to be 22 years of age, for damages for non-delivery of goods. The defendant alleged infancy, and a written statement was filed on his behalf by one Lachmi Narain, in which the contract was denied, and the defences of infancy and of wagering were set up. Issues were settled by the Judge on the 9th of January, 1919. The question of the defendant s minority was separately tried and was decided against him in March. When the day for the trial in May arrived the parties decided to refer their dispute to arbitration, and the issues which had been struck were, by order of Court, referred to an arbitrator, who made an award on the 23rd of June in favour of the defendant, holding that, although the defendant was of age, there had been no contract, and dismissing the suit.

(2.) On the 25th of June, the plaintiff filed objections in the Court of the Subordinate Judge praying that the award be set aside. These objections alleged, first, fraud and collusion between the defendant and the arbitrator, and necessarily, therefore, misconduct by the arbitrator, secondly, failure by the defendant to file a written statement of his own after the decision against him as to his age, and, thirdly, further trumpery complaints of the nature of misconduct against the arbitrator, not necessary to particularize here.

(3.) On the 16th of September, in spite of the fact that the defendant had adopted the written statement of Lachmi Narain, and that the issues originally settled had been expressly referred to the arbitrator by the Court, the Subordinate Judge held that the absence of a further written statement by the defendant invalidated the reference and the arbitration, and that therefore the award was invalid, and he set it aside, The defendant now applies to this Court in revision to quash the order, and an objection is raised to the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere. This objection gives rise to a technical question of some difficulty.